The long-simmering fight over what belongs on San Diego's bayfront has moved to Sacramento, where Assemblymember Chris Ward is pushing a bill that would effectively wall off Mission Bay Park from state housing mandates.
Ward introduced Assembly Bill 2525 last Friday, aiming to exempt Mission Bay Park from California's Surplus Land Act and blunt the power of statewide housing rules to push homes onto the bayfront. The bill zeroes in on the roughly 4,200 acres covered by the park's master plan and follows a City of San Diego request last year for a waiver that state housing officials rejected. Supporters say the change would preserve public recreation space and clear the way for hotels and conference facilities envisioned in the master plan, rather than residential development.
What the bill would do
AB 2525 would add a new subsection to the Government Code, carving out lands within the Mission Bay Park master plan from the procedural requirements of the Surplus Land Act, according to California Legislative Information. Ward introduced the measure last Friday, and it is still pending referral, with legislative records indicating it could be taken up in committee as soon as March 23.
Ward and his allies argue the park was deeded to the city nearly a century ago with explicit instructions that it be used for recreation, not housing. He reiterated that point in comments reported by The San Diego Union-Tribune, framing the bill as a way to honor that original intent while still allowing commercial uses already laid out in the master plan.
The parcels at stake
At the center of the fight are three commercial parcels identified in city documents: Marina Village (about 23 acres), Dana Landing (roughly 4.5 acres) and Sportsmen's Seafood (about 0.8 acres), for a combined total of roughly 28 acres in southwestern Mission Bay Park, according to the City of San Diego.
The Marina Village leasehold on Quivira Way has been described by city staff as dilapidated and underperforming, and its lease is set to expire in April 2027, local reporting notes. Those conditions have fueled the administration's push to renegotiate leases and explore redevelopment options for the bayfront, even as the broader debate over housing versus hotels has heated up.
Why the city sought an exemption
City officials told advisory boards they wanted to sidestep the Surplus Land Act steps that require agencies to first offer surplus sites for affordable housing. Their goal, they said, was to regain control over long-term leasing so the city could pursue a hotel and conference center permitted under the existing master plan instead.
The administration requested a formal exemption from state housing officials last year. City spokespeople said that request was denied, and local outlets reported the city then began exploring legislative options. City communications staff have also pointed to the long list of legal and regulatory hurdles - including a potential charter amendment, Coastal Commission approval and other reviews - that would make building housing in Mission Bay difficult even if the land were opened up.
Developers' pitch and neighborhood pushback
In 2025, a developer group that included Suntex Marinas and La Jolla-based Monarch floated an unsolicited proposal that reportedly called for a resort hotel and as many as 900 homes on or near the Marina Village site, according to the Times of San Diego.
That pitch, and the lobbying around it, alarmed nearby residents and helped spur the Mission Bay Park Committee and many neighbors to resist any move to declare the land surplus. Hoodline coverage of the city's dynamic redevelopment push and reporting from other outlets chronicled how quickly opposition coalesced once housing was floated for the bayfront.
What’s next
For now, the real action is procedural. Legislative records show AB 2525 is awaiting referral and could be set for a committee hearing as soon as March 23, 2026, which would mark the bill's next major test, according to California Legislative Information.
If the Assembly signs off on the exemption, city leaders say it would strip away the Surplus Land Act's notification and negotiation requirements that give affordable housing first dibs on declared surplus property. That, they argue, would make it easier for San Diego to pursue hotel or conference projects instead. Community groups and some City Council members are already signaling they will press for robust public hearings and input if the bill starts to move.
Legal context
The Surplus Land Act generally requires local agencies to advertise and offer surplus property first for affordable housing and to enter good-faith negotiations when affordable housing proposals emerge. The process is overseen by the state Department of Housing and Community Development, according to municipal guidance on the law.
Local governments can seek exemptions if they can demonstrate legal or planning constraints, but carving out a specific area like Mission Bay by statute would be an unusual way to resolve a local land use dispute. That mix of state law, local rules and hardball politics helps explain why the argument has shifted from San Diego City Hall to the Capitol.
For now, the key dates are in Sacramento. Ward's AB 2525 is still in its early stages, and any committee action is likely to trigger fresh scrutiny from park advocates, commercial tenants and neighborhood leaders as the city pursues what it calls a plan to revive underused bayfront assets.
